CastorRight now at EADS Manching:
Uh, guys, there seems to be a little bit of a problem here. We’ve got this landing gear thing here, and I don’t know what to do with it. Shall we remove it or those Storm Shadows? Well huh, they should fit according to our broschure, so I guess that landing gear thing gotta go…
Castorwell it was so 20 years ago…but now shanghai alone expect a poplutation flux of 2 million per day. That means that about 2 million chinese comes and leaves shanghai each day.
My colleague were in China on a business trip as late as last year. At that time, most chinese citiziens were not allowed to move around freely within China – even less going abroad. I don’t believe that things have changed so much since then.
You need planes to bring foreign tourists in and planes to take Chinese tourists out.
I thought that most foreign tourists use their own countries airlines? For example, when people go to Russia it isn’t all that common to use Aeroflot if I may say so. And when you say “to take Chinese tourists out” – how many could that be? I would say that it is very few chinese tourists that goes abroad compared to many other (rich & democratic) countries.
So I would still like to say that one of the possible reasons to why China haven’t had any fully developed commercial airplanes is that they didn’t needed any. When it comes to military jet fighters – it’s a completely different ball game…
regards,
Castor
CastorA lot of countries really like the option of buying cheap high-performance Russian planes, but can these countries afford to operate these aircrafts efficiently one they get them?
Gripen might sometimes be a better alternative here…
Regards
I would say that not even Russia itself is able to pay the high operative cost, hence the few flight hours per russian pilot. You might also want to look at India and their Mig-21’s if we speak about russian gear in general, I mean seriously – there’s more than one reason to why Poland, Hungary and Czech Republic opted for western fighters.
Another thing that is completely forgotten in this discussion is quality. During the previous Joint Winter operations in Norway, the SweAf Gripens managed to conduct 98% of it’s missions. As a sidenote, Nato requires +70%. When will we see russian fighters capable of such a high mission-effectiveness?
regards,
Castor
Edit: I forgot to give the source where these 98% are mentioned. Unfortunately it’s in swedish:
http://www.mil.se/int/index.php?lang=S&c=news&id=20633&ncid=481
CastorIsn’t is so that people aren’t allowed to move around freely within China as well? That would make the need of commercial jets far less than their population could make you think.
Castor
CastorBetween these mirage 2000 in Marocco and the F-1 in Djibouti, I wonder what aviations fans will think about our AF. Well, they will certainly like it 😀
Well the video was ok, but the music? Uhm, those french guys should stick to flying. 😮
CastorAnd even some who don’t worship at the altar of Venik will try to tell you that 90+ kills to 0 losses is irrelevant in the face of today’s infinitely superior Russian machines.
Yep, the russkies have made a giant leap tehnology wise after the breakdown of the Soviet Union according to some sources at this board…
CastorThe whole fighter market is not limited to western air forces, right? 😉
– No it sure ain’t. But what countries can order 100+ fighters as of today? You mentioned India, but that’s a country that needed 20 years to order some Hawks! How probable is it that they’ll actually order 100+ fighters to be delivered in the near-time? :rolleyes:
Sure the Eurofighters 18 exports is very small but it starts out at a hefty 600+ units fort the four home countries, that is almost the triple of the Swedish Gripen order.
– It also starts with a hefty price tag and being operational about 10 years later than Gripen since there are four countries involved. Everything doesn’t count in numbers either – Gripen was designed as a cost efficient fighter from start, since the swedish airforce wasn’t too keen on having several types of fighters.
At the same time if the news regarding the long term storage of over 100 Gripen A/B units and disbandment of half of the current operational wings in Swedish service the whole industrial program could come down as a fenomenal house of cards. Less operational units mean less investment in post sale support and a higher maintenance cost in the near future…
– The swedish airforce inspector has claimed a need of 160 fighters and he’s being backed up by the opposition. Todays decision of defence cuts is taken by the left wing alone, in fact, only the left and green parties (having about 10% support all in all) have had this on their agenda. The governing social democrats were forced to take this decision in order to stay in power since they needed the left and green parties to gain majority. This is being a historical decision, because the left wing (ie communists) have never ever been invited to discuss defence orientated matters. So, you can count on that this whole decision will be torn into pieces during next year when there’s an election. The opposition is in a clear lead today.
Irrespective of this, the order of 204 Gripens is still signed and will be delivered.
Don’t get me wrong, I believe the Gripen is a fabulous fighter I just think that Sweden lacks the political and economic punch needed to be successful selling against the West Europeans and the Americans.
– I agree on that, especially with the polish and czech tender in mind. But let’s also remember that the czechs did stand up against the american threats.
10 years in the future especially in countries like Hungary undergoing tremendous changes in the economical and political scenarios is a VERY long time, who can with some degree of confidence have any idea what will the government in charge then do, I wouldn’t even try to guess…
– They have signed a contract for buying these fighters. What more do you want for a guarantee? I would be more worried for an indian deal of 100+ fighters. That seems more likeley to be a no-show imho.
I think you’re painting the sky with black. Gripen has been selected by the thai airforce inspector, there’s a written MoU with Bulgary, they’re in the swiss fighter tender (where they might have a good chance) and we see that JSF is going to get terribly expensive which could open up new markets. An example of the latter is that Norway is starting to discuss Gripen as an alternative to JSF and Eurofighter.
regards,
Castor
CastorMaybe not in terms of new users but the numbers sold are puny….
– I thought that the current sales were: 176 x Sweden, 28 x South Africa, 14 x Hungary and 14 x Czech Republic = 232 aircraft for 4 countries, out of which 56 were export orders. This should be compared to Dassault’s Rafale, which has scored 0 (zero) export orders, or Eurofighter’s Typhoon, which has scored 18 export orders. So I would rather say that they’re doing quite well at the export market compared to their competitors – and I believe that’s what counts. You can’t really do much about the fact that most western countries are suffering from major defence cuts.
There’s no critical mass to the program, no Indian-style order for 150 units garanteeing a ten-year long production line….. generating revenue for post sale support services and mid-life upgrades…
– In the 1980’s, the swedish airforce told Saab that they were only interested in a Gripen program if it were to be more cost efficient than buying F-16’s, and if it were capable of delivering performance (exceeding or) according to their (ie the swedish airforce’s) specification. Therefore I dare to say that the critical mass you’re talking about were achieved in the mid 90’s when ‘delserie 3’ was ordered by the swedish government.
On top of this the european countries are actualy leasing their aircraft so they can be returned to Sweden easily after the expiration date…
– Czech republic is leasing their fighters on a 10 years basis. Hungary had a similar agreement but have already decided to buy theirs after these 10 years.
The fact that BAE Systems this year bailed out of this program is very revealing to me….
– Revealing regarding what? British Aerospace has probably meant a lot to the Nato integration projects for C/D versions, but their help at the export market can be summarized with one word – failure. The South African deal was won by Saab in 1997 before Bae was involved in Gripen International, Hungary and Czech Republic was a government to government agreement and the Thai interest in Gripen was revealed after Bae decided to bail out. But there was one thing Bae was very much involved in – the Chilean deal. According to some sources (such as the paper ‘Flygrevyn’) the chilean deal was more or less done for Saab when Great Britain decided to arrest Pinochet. Since Gripen International was partly owned by the british, they were defamed by this.
You should also take into account that Bae has interests in both Eurofighter Typhoon, F-35 JSF and Jas-39 Gripen. This is getting quite problematic – imagine that Eurofighter Typhoon are put up against Jas-39 Gripen in a tender. Which one of them do you think they would try to sell? Probably the one giving the highest profit. If this happens to be Typhoon – what do you think the relationship between Bae and Saab would be like?
regards,
Castor
CastorI apologize for the misunderstanding.
No problems mate!
And you’re always free to have an opinion, no matter what it is, you know! 🙂
CastorBut if that’s the case, then government such France, Great Britain, Russia and the United States should lead the way in getting rid of these monstruosities. Otherwise, Chirac, Blair and Bush are simple hypocrits!
So you are suggesting that all western stable democracies should get rid of their nukes before unpredictable dictators like North Korea which threatens to use their nuke from now and then?
You don’t think that these dictators might use this advantage in a rather unpeaceful way?
CastorExactly ,this was the unic time after teh WWII that two HUGE navies almost clashed one each other
and also:But here a question or two:
-the french Navy could have been impressive, but as logistic it seems to me not enough comparable with RN. this cannot be only a question of requiring civil vessels to have a logistic available to fight until the Pole South
-The Harriers on the RN carriers operated very often in very bad weather conditions, so i ask: A Clemenceau could operate with its conventionals aircrafts in such conditions? I think that it could be difficult even for a US carrier (after all, there must be a weather limits also for these latters, or?)
Regarding your latter question – does it matter? If you are the attacker you choose when and how you should attack. If weather is bad – wait far out at sea a day or two.
CastorWell, from my point of view I would like to say that it is most unlikely that US, GB, France, Israel – or whichever western country you want, should use nukes against an enemy that doesn’t. Undemocratic countries such as Iran is much more unpredictable – and regarding the fact that they actually said that they want to eliminate the israelian state I think it’s quite obvious that Iran is a threat to peace in middle east. Israel isn’t*.
But I do agree on being pessimistic about an israelian success of such an operation!
regards,
Castor
Edit:
* in the meaning of being a threat to peace by nuclear means
CastorAccording to Uzi Mahnaimi in Sunday Times today, Israel has made a plan on how to attack Iranian nuclear facilities if west fails to halt the iranian nuclear programme by diplomatic means.
Ariel Sharon gave a green light to the planning of this operation in januar this year and the plan would (if necessary) be conducted by combat jets (F-15) and commandos (from Shaldag). Excercises have already taken place were a model of Natanz-plant has been used. The plan has also been introduced to the US, which are said to stay passive if Israel intends to go to action (if diplomacy fails and the iranian continues their programme that is).
My personal view of this, and now I suppose we’re getting into politics, is that I’m glad that Israel are capable of taking a decision that United Nations should have taken. Iran has been threatening the whole existence of an israelian state ever since their birth. Now since United Nations should be working for the right to every nation to exist – they should have been the ones to deal with this matter. Looking at what kind of countries there are in UN – I’m not surprised though…
regards,
Castor
CastorAccording to New York Post the firing of Boeings CEO was ordered by Pentagon. The reason was that Stonecipher had access to top secret information and by behaving in such a way that he did, Pentagon completely lost their confidence in Stoneciphers reliability.
regards,
Castor
CastorAccording to New York Post the firing of Boeings CEO was ordered by Pentagon. The reason was that Stonecipher had access to top secret information and by behaving in such a way that he did, Pentagon completely lost their confidence in Stoneciphers reliability.
regards,
Castor
Sign In
